Pawan Kalyan, Andhra Pradesh’s Deputy Chief Minister and Janasena Party chief, ignited a fresh controversy by accusing Tamil Nadu of hypocrisy over its stance on Hindi. He pointed out that while Tamil Nadu strongly resists the imposition of the language, its film industry eagerly dubs Tamil movies into Hindi to reap profits from the lucrative Bollywood market. Speaking on his party’s foundation day, Kalyan argued that India’s strength lies in its linguistic diversity, emphasizing that embracing multiple languages — including Tamil and Hindi — is essential to maintaining the country’s unity and integrity.
“In Tamil Nadu, people oppose the imposition of Hindi. This makes me wonder — if they don’t want Hindi, then why do they dub Tamil films in Hindi for financial gains? They want money from Bollywood but refuse to accept the language. What kind of logic is that?” Kalyan questioned, suggesting that the state’s position is inconsistent and driven by economic convenience rather than genuine linguistic pride.
He further criticized Tamil Nadu’s approach to migrant workers, pointing out an apparent contradiction. The state employs a vast workforce from Hindi-speaking regions like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, and West Bengal — with estimates placing the number between 15-20 lakh — yet continues to reject the Hindi language itself. Kalyan questioned this disparity, stating, “They welcome labourers from Bihar but reject the language. They want revenue from Hindi-speaking states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Chhattisgarh, but refuse Hindi. Isn’t that unfair? Shouldn’t this mindset change?”
Kalyan’s remarks arrive amid an escalating language debate between the BJP-led central government and Tamil Nadu’s DMK administration over the ‘three-language formula’ under the New Education Policy (NEP). This policy advocates for students to learn three languages — including Hindi — to enhance job opportunities across different regions of the country. Tamil Nadu, however, has vehemently opposed the policy, arguing that it is a thinly veiled attempt to impose Hindi on the state, undermining Tamil’s prominence and cultural significance.
The tension intensified when the Centre withheld ₹2,152 crore in funds meant for Tamil Nadu’s Samagra Shiksha scheme, citing the state’s refusal to implement the NEP. Tamil Nadu leaders, particularly from the DMK, view the policy as an attack on their linguistic heritage, pointing to the state’s long history of opposing Hindi imposition since the rise of the Dravidian movement in the 1960s.
Kalyan’s comments reflect a broader ideological push for national linguistic integration, echoing the BJP’s vision of a more homogenized cultural identity. However, his remarks also tap into a longstanding cultural fault line — one that Tamil Nadu fiercely protects as a matter of self-respect and regional pride. The Dravidian movement’s legacy, which rejected Hindi in favor of promoting Tamil and English, remains a powerful force in the state’s political and social fabric.
By framing the language issue through the lens of economics and migration, Kalyan positioned his argument as one of practicality and fairness. He implied that Tamil Nadu enjoys the economic benefits of Hindi-speaking regions — through both film markets and labor — yet refuses to accept the language itself. This narrative may resonate with audiences outside Tamil Nadu, particularly in Hindi-speaking regions, where the resistance to Hindi imposition is less pronounced.
At the same time, his comments are likely to spark a backlash within Tamil Nadu, where language is deeply intertwined with identity and autonomy. For many, opposition to Hindi is not merely about communication but about preserving a distinct cultural heritage that they believe is threatened by a one-size-fits-all national language policy.
Kalyan’s intervention adds another layer to the already charged debate, which touches on not just language but also regional pride, economic realities, and national unity. Whether his remarks will ignite a larger conversation about the balance between regional identities and national cohesion — or simply deepen existing divides — remains to be seen.
